Skip to main content

About your Search

20130124
20130201
STATION
MSNBC 6
MSNBCW 6
CSPAN 4
CSPAN2 2
LANGUAGE
English 22
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
, brought spending down from where it was. at the per capita level, president obama has actually brought spending down since he took office. so remember that. bush, more spending. obama, less spending. that is what is true. >> it's clear the president is not serious about cutting spending. but spending is the problem. >> we've got to stop the president on this issue. he is an out-of-control train right now on spending. >> the president remains committed to an agenda that calls for ever higher spending, a government that is out of control. >> the president wants to pretend that spending isn't the problem. >> it is a spending problem. and the president wants to increase taxes to continue the spending. >> these democrats are going to spend us right into bankruptcy. they're not serious about getting things under control and stopping the spending. >> the white house is so unserious about cutting spending. >> none of that is true. i mean, to the extent that true means attached to facts. here is spending under bush. here is spending under clinton. here is how spending has dropped under presiden
to increase automatically. president obama wants to spend more on education. that's tough. so these cuts go into effect, but they might find very quickly that it's very difficult to actually implement them. >> last thing here to you, chris, we're hearing about a couple of senators not going to be -- not going to seek re-election. talking about harkin, saxby chambliss. chambliss cited the gridlock in washington as part of the reason him wanting to step away. get your reaction to both of these men not seeking re-election. and also what are your thoughts on chambliss actually citing what's happening in washington as part of the reason for him wanting to get out of there? >> i think what we're seeing right now is a generational change in washington. chambliss and harkin and guys like that are part of that change. and it's interesting particularly in chambliss's case as you point out he does cite the partisan gridlock. but he's also part of that old republican guard. he's very close friends with house speaker john boehner for example. i think you're going to see as the republican party changes s
was obama and as a scare, the stimulus committee increase in spending, the expansion of the government. or to put it in a more abstract and grand was the difference between federal and state which was tilting more toward state. when the question is put that way, the country shows itself to be center-right country. had republicans been able to duplicate those conditions, that framework in 2012, they would have won. but it is not the same election. 2010 is almost purely ideological election. perhaps the most ideological since 1980. then you get to 2010, when you have a personality involved and you have a figure represents one side. romney is a good man. i like him. i think he is an honorable man, and i think he would have made an excellent president. but he was a bad candidate particularly in an election that could have been one had been an election about ideas and philosophy. i think it would have been easily won had been about ideas and philosophy. but he was not the math -- he was not the best man on our side to make that case. secondly, he decided not to make the case either way and
spending and debt crisis. as we all know, bowles was tapped by president obama to lead a bipartisan deficit commission with former republican senator alan simpson. the two men, along with a commission, proposed recommendations for you are a big and bold plan to reduce our long-term debt. rather than heed some of these recommendations and build off of this bipartisan momentum cephal years ago -- several years ago, the president ignored it completely and since has done nothing and offered no plan of his own p. -- of his own to fix our dire fiscal plight other than to propose new taxes. as i mentioned in previous remarks the president got his tax increases on millionaires and billionaires, but no one should be fooled into thinking that this solves our fiscal crisis. recently in ain' in an intervier chief of staff erskine bowles rightfully criticized the administration and the congress for not striking a significant budget deal and called it the most -- that failure the most disappointing thing in my life. he went on to say, "ther "they'e bouncing from one crisis to noamplet it's nuts. we have
to speak about taxes, debt and spending. it's time for president obama to show leadership, real leadership, on the biggest threat that america faces to our future prosperity. as my good friend, the republican leader, has said, if we don't get a handle on spending and debt, not much else matters. it has now been 1,371 days, almost four years, since democrats who control the united states senate have brought a budget to the floor and had a vote on and passed the budget. over that time our national debt has grown by more than $5.2 trillion. our credit rating has been downgraded because of fears that we may not be able to pay our debt back when it is ultimately due. and we have experienced the highest -- excuse me -- the longest period of high unemployment since the great depression. since the end of the official recession in 2009, americans' household median income has fallen by roughly $2,500, while the cost of employer-provided family health insurance has increased by more than $2,300, roughly a comparable amount. not only has income fallen by $2,500; costs have gone up thanks to obamacare
think the republicans should spend less time complaining about president obama and his intentions and more time to thinking about what they can solve and where they can work with him and where they really can fight and should fight him and really try to do some good for the country by mitigating the damage he is doing. and where they cannot mitigate the damage, they can set a fire say we are confident the public will see the failure of president obama's policies and we will get a real alternative. host: this tweet -- jeb bush of florida has this in the wall street journal this morning on solving the immigration puzzle. jeb bush says there is no line. guest: i would be with him. and i thought that romney's attacks on rick perry and newt gingrich were not fair on immigration. mitt romney was supposed to be the moderate candidate and rick perry was the right-winger. rick perry was the one who was more forward-looking and more liberal on immigration, which would have served the party better. romney by pandering to what he thought or parts of the republican base on immigration. when he
that this is the main vehicle. the gang of eight bill will be the main vehicle with president obama's backing. if you need an example of why republicans need to get on this issue, nevada started the 2012 election as a swing state. by the end of it neither party was spending money there because the hispanic community was so aligned with the democratic candidate that mitt romney couldn't compete. it went the way of new mexico in 2008, and i think republicans recognized that this is a first step. simply signing on to immigration reform doesn't mean they're going to win 70% of the hispanic vote, but they need to get this issue behind them because electorally speaking they would struggle for a decade or two decades if they don't. sxwro we've seen a mood swing. republicans know they have to get right on this, and this is why you're seeing this coalition come together so quickly. there's support for it. there's a new cbs news poll that shows that a majority, 51%, believe in a path to sit sfwlenship. there's only 24% that say the undocumented immigrant should get out. >> that will be one of the final issues
, obama's clinton role agenda calling it liberal. >> the president wants to be a transformational president not by moving to the center but by pushing an agenda that involves higher taxes, more spending on social programs and no cuts in entitlements. we have problems with the debt, deficit, and entitlements and unless we take them on we do the country a disservice. >> it is like "i gotcha" and here is the real thing. bigger government and more taxes. what was interesting about the speech, it was so uncompromising in the sense there was no discussion whatever about the economy. i heard nothing about the economy or nothing about debt or the fact this country is going broke, it was about expanding government. as doug said, it, in an effort to move left, the reality of the times is going to fit in but he has made his hard play. that is what it was. >>gregg: americans want the deficit to be addressed but without medicare cuts. look poll, 58 percent, no cuts. what tour make of this? >> and 89 percent of the people do not want to change anything to do with medicare. the speech that he ma
, which i believe is what happened this time. exhibit a, obama is upside down in his approval ratings on every economic usher. it is accepted wisdom that he had a negative job approval on handling the economy, taxes, unemployment, spending, gas prices. we are not the only people who knew that. chicago knew that, too. they were good to do something about that. then it was, about 42%. romney has been a job creator. he has made things. he has balanced budgets. he has hired and fired people. he will take a business experience and put it to washington. a couple things wrong with that. one is, the economy by itself, romney and obama were 43 and 44% each. you need 51% or above to win. the obama people kept adding points for women, immigration, hurricane sandy. they were able to get their realization that economy may be most important,, but it is not the only thing. you only had to choose one candidate, you do not have to choose one issue. where do people who believe in free well, human reason, intelligence and your ability and have issues that are important to you. now republicans dealing wi
't touch. this political negligence suggests that obama has chosen to ignore negative budget projections, credit downgrades, falling revenues and perpetual increases in mandatory spending. instead, the president is teeing up partisan legislative battles with republicans in hopes of -- but as a measurement of the president's seriousness, his second inaugural address can only be seen as a grand failure that missed yet another historic opportunity to call americans together in the name of shared sacrifice. and richard haass, there is another opportunity, which would be the state of the union which i'm sort of banking on. >> traditionally inaugurals are the poetry, and then the state of the union becomes the prose. and the president did not prepare for educate the american people about some of the tough decisions to come, particularly on medicare and medicaid. so the real question going forward for the state of the union is whether he essentially addresses that. and whether he -- because we've still got more than, i think, more than $2 trillion in serious cuts to be made to entitlements over
on fire when we talk about something. does not always have to be an anti obama statement. i actually prefer to ignore him more than anything. one day i will wake up and he will not be president. i can spend time with people who are useful to advancing the ideas and the belief systems that we have in free market and religious liberties and limited government and the family etc.. what about the warm the heart? that is really important. people say, that will not move of voters. it will actually get them to listen, maybe. i think you see some variation of or a combination of different audiences in consumer and america. i keep going back to that because most people do not wake up and referred to themselves or their upcoming day according to their political ideological association. what are they saying when they wake up? what are they saying? they say, i am late for work, i am tired, is it snowing? i am a mother of three. i do not think my business is going to make it. what is it they are saying? by the way, we are supposed to believe that we do not have a solution for everything. again, t
to represent american national security and keep the peace. and i worry that president obama has picked senator hagel because really the defense department is the only part of the government that he seems to be willing to cut. he's not really interested in reining in spending in almost any other area except national security. he said the sequester, which is the $1.2 trillion in cuts that are scheduled to go in effect, which disproportion athlete affect defense spending, the president said during the campaign, ain't going to happen of the well, it's going to happen. it's going to happen here in about six weeks. >> steve: before you go, something that looks like will happen is it looks like it's bipartisan plan to reform immigration. what do you think? >> i hope so. we'll hear from the president this week, but it really requires presidential leadership, like so many of these issues, because it's easy for people to sort of get off in their corner and argue their particular agenda. but it's hard to come together on big complex -- >> steve: so it's up to the president? >> it's up to all of us, but t
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)